California Casualty Indemnity v. Josephat Mua

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999842978-2], denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999842957-2]; granting Motion to exceed length limitations [999922567-2], granting Motion to exceed length limitations [999914904-2]; granting Motion to amend/correct [999922553-2]; denying Motion to dismiss appeal [999890830-2]; denying Motion for costs [999890830-3]; denying Motion attorney's fees [999890830-4] Originating case number: 8:15-cv-00060-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999978791]. Mailed to: J Mua, F Vandenplas. [16-1584]

Appeal: 16-1584

Doc: 40

Filed: 12/01/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-1584

CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOSEPHAT MUA; FRANCOISE VANDENPLAS,
Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:15-cv-00060-PJM)

Submitted:

November 22, 2016

Before DIAZ and
Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

December 1, 2016

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas, Appellants Pro Se.
V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN &
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Thomas
SEMMES,

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-1584

Doc: 40

Filed: 12/01/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Appellants Josephat Mua and Francoise Vandenplas seek to
appeal

the

district

unjust

enrichment

court’s

action

orders

to

state

remanding
court

motions for reconsideration and to reopen.

the

and

underlying

denying

their

California Casualty

Indemnity Exchange (California Casualty) has moved to dismiss
the

appeal

ordered

as

to

frivolous,

pay

the

and

also

damages,

associated with this appeal.

asks

costs,

that

and

Appellants

attorney’s

be

fees

Appellants have filed motions to

exceed the length limitations for their appellate filings and
for leave to file a corrected response to California Casualty’s
motion to dismiss, and have also filed applications to proceed
in forma pauperis.
Subject

to

exceptions

not

applicable

here,

“[a]n

order

remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is
not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.”

28 U.S.C. § 1447(d)

(2012); see E.D. ex rel. Darcy v. Pfizer, Inc., 722 F.3d 574,
579-83 (4th Cir. 2013).

Because the district court’s orders do

not fall within the exceptions provided by § 1447, the orders
are not appealable.
Accordingly,
jurisdiction.

we

dismiss

the

appeal

for

lack

of

We grant Appellants’ motions to exceed the length

limitations for their appellate filings and to file a corrected
response, and deny Appellants’ in forma pauperis applications.
2

Appeal: 16-1584

Doc: 40

Filed: 12/01/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

We deny California Casualty’s motion to dismiss and for
sanctions. *
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the material before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

*

We note that this is Appellants’ second unsuccessful
appeal of the same matter, and we therefore warn Appellants that
another appeal may subject them to sanctions.

3